 Everybody, today we are having a debate on the fossil record and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. This is going to be a fun one, folks, and I want to let you know if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we have many more debates to come. So for example, we're very excited that this Saturday, G-Man and Nathan Thompson will be debating against Fight the Flat Earth and Team Skeptic on the topic of evolution in a tag team debate. So very exciting, folks, and I want to let you know we are a neutral platform, so we don't have any videos that take any particular sides regarding these issues. We just let the debaters do that and a couple more things before we get started. It's going to be a kind of a hybrid type of format today, where each speaker will have six minutes for their opening statement. Then we'll have open conversation for 45 minutes and then Q&A for about 15 minutes. I want to let you know 100% of all of the super chats that come in today will be going to the cause of COVID relief. So we really do care about this. This is something we feel like unites us. No matter what walk of life you're from, I'm sure you care about getting medical products to the right people so that it hopefully will save lives. And so we really enjoy having you here, folks, and want to let you know if you want to see the receipt for that donation, let me know even if it's your first time here, just shoot me an email and say, Hey, James, can I see that? And I'll say, Absolutely. We want to be fully transparent about that with that. One also let you know because we have to respect the debaters time, we will not get to read every single super chat. So just want to give you a warning and we will definitely not be reading super chats that are abusive toward our guests who both have come on freely just because they love to debate these topics. And so with that, we are going to jump into this debate. If you have a question, feel free to fire it into the old live chat. And if you do, if you tag at modern day debate, that makes it easier for me to be sure that every single question gets in the list at least and super chats an option in which case you can not only ask a question but also make a comment if you'd like that one of the speakers or both would get a chance to respond to. So with that, I want to say thanks so much to our guests for being here. As like I said, we really appreciate it. They knew coming into this that this is going to be a fundraiser as we try to do one charity drive per month. And so we appreciate them helping make that possible. So thanks so much, Kent Hovind and David. We appreciate appreciate both of you being here with us. Thank you so much. Glad to be here. Absolutely. Our pleasure. And so with that, David, I am going to set the clock for six minutes and the floor is all yours for your opening statement. OK, perfect. Thank you so much, James. And I'll share screen here. OK, all right, can you all see my screen? OK, perfect. Excellent. OK, so today, Kent and I are going to talk about the fossil record and whether or not we think it's evidence for evolution and I take the position that it absolutely does. But first, I want to clarify something. After talking with a few of my friends and friends around the area, I kind of get the impression that they think that there's a conflict between science and religion, which is not true. You know, for example, the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Methodist Church, they all openly accept evolution. And Pope Francis even describes it as just an intricate way that God decides to make things. It's just the physiology of exactly how he does it. So I just want to clarify that from the beginning. And here are a list of some evolutionary scientists who are also theists. The three here are Ken Miller, which is on the top left, followed by Robert Bacher with the arm. And finally, the director of the NIH down there on the bottom right. They're all theistic evolutionary scientists. So I just want to clarify this again. OK, so let's define what we mean by evolution. Evolution is the change in genetic frequency in a population of organisms from one generation to another. I understand that Ken accepts that as well as most creationists. He just has a problem with how far it goes regarding like different kinds. But we don't really know what a kind is because it doesn't really have a definition. He's given examples, but he just hasn't given like a clear cut definition of it. And again, microevolution is just like the picture that was shown before. It's just evolution on small scale within a population. Kent again has no problem with this at all. Now, interestingly, when looking at macroevolution, that is evolution at or above the level of species. And as you can see, these alligators and crocodiles here those are all different species, all one of them are. Now, I presume that Kent would probably think that they're all the same kind, whatever that means, but they're different species, which means that they cannot or excuse me, they cannot produce fertile offspring. And like ligars, for example, ligars and mules are sterile, which means that they cannot have babies themselves. So that's why lions and tigers are different species. And the same would be true for these crocodilians. In fact, there are a few of them that could not even produce an infertile hybrid, such as the American alligator and the Nile crocodile, for example. OK, so when looking at different transitional forms here, when looking from dinosaurs to birds, we have archaeopteryx, which interestingly was discovered two years after Darwin published his book in 1859. It has, if you look at the top right picture, you'll see a consignatus, which is, you know, everybody would accept that that's that's a dinosaur. But in the middle, you will see archaeopteryx and it has very it has, you know, wings or it has arms similar to that of the chicken on the on the right. But it also has three fingers, which no living bird alive today has those. And it also has a mouth with teeth and no beak, which again, no living bird has that. And it also has a long bony tail, just like the consignatus. You know, living bird has that today. And interestingly, Fred Hoyle, he was a creationist himself, although uniquely interesting one. He said that he thought that micro or excuse me, that archaeopteryx was just a consignatus type of dinosaur with feathers glued onto it, even though you can't really glue feathers. But that's another story. But also, it's clearly, you know, very birdlike. A lot of creationists, you know, they will say that, you know, archaeopteryx is just a bird, despite the dinosaur traits, which is the tail and the lack of the beak and the three fingers and so forth. And micro raptor, another animal, very, very similar to archaeopteryx, except that it had four wings and it is slightly and it's younger, it's dated to be around 120 million years old. And also, oh, yeah, I probably I think I said it had four wings before. So, yeah, that's another interesting one. And Sinornithosaurus was another interesting dinosaur, bird, dinosaur, whatever you want to call it. It's a really good trend. These are really good transitional fossils. Again, that's it lived around the time of micro raptor. It was just a little larger and it might have even been venomous because I think I remember reading an article where it had venom sex in its jaw or something like that. I'm not exactly sure, but. All right. And Cadipteryx is another interesting critter, very bird-like in that it had the tail and the wings. Oh, well, it had very weak looking wings. Obviously, it couldn't fly with them. It's too big in those arms or those wings are too small, but clearly very bird-like, you know, it had that long tail also with feathers. And this is a very, very interesting looking critter. So OK, sure. All right, cool. When looking at Lucy or Australopithecus afarensis, we that was pretty much the missing link that Darwin predicted in his book about like the link between modern apes and humans. It had a lot. It had a femur more like a modern human. That is these the femur is this bone right here. It's Lucy's is slanted right here. And a modern chimpanzee, which is on the very right, it is slanted outward, which means that Lucy was most likely bipedal or at least at least some of the time. It was at least it may not have been fully bipedal, but. It was at least, you know, at least habitual biped. And it also had a pelvis more like that of a modern human, as well as a form in magnum, which is the hole that connects the skull to the spinal cord. That's it's more like ours than it is any modern ape. So and when looking at another, you know, ape to human transition or ape like creatures to. With that, we are going to kick it over to Kent. And thanks so much, Kent. The floor is all yours. Well, thank you. Can you go full screen on my slides like you did his? Yes, we can. If you hit share screen on your side on Zoom, I am full screen on his OK. All right. Well, thank you for having me. I do a lot of debates on this topic, creation versus evolution. I've been I became a Christian 51 years ago, gave my heart to the Lord as a sophomore in high school. I take the position that the Bible is literally true and scientifically accurate and the evolution theory being forced down our kids' throats is the dumbest and most dangerous religion in the history of the world. There is zero evidence for evolution, especially from the fossil record, which we'll talk about in a minute. But David, I appreciate you coming on to defend your faith. That was indeed a faith you presented a religious worldview. We don't know that Lucy had any children, any of those fossils. We'll talk about that in a minute. Our ministry, Dr. Dino Dot Tom is in Lenox, Alabama. We have a Christian camp, a science center, a museum, everything free, come on down. So David says the fossil record supports evolution and he's going to use transitional fossils. And we got that here. I would like to point out for the record, your honor, there is no such thing as a fossil record. There are lots of fossils, lots of fossils. We have hundreds, maybe thousands in our museum. Come on down and see them. But they're not a record. None of the fossils talk. None of them have a date stamped on them. You're putting your interpretation on them. And I go through this on my seminar part four for a long time about the supposed fossil record. There it, well, I'll show you. If you find a fossil in the dirt, all you really know is it died. That's it. You could not prove it had any kids. You certainly could not prove it had any kids that lived. You could never prove it had different kinds of kids than it's kind. In a court of law, every single in an honest court of law, every fossil they bring in as evidence would be thrown out. All I'd say is, your honor, they found some bones in the dirt. They don't know that one had any children. Yep, you're right. Throw it out. You sure don't know it had kids that were different. Yeah, you're right. Throw it out. And why would you claim a bone in the dirt can do something no animal today can do? No animal today produces anything other than its kind. Birds produce birds, frogs produce frogs, dogs produce dogs. There are no exceptions. David, I don't know who taught you this stuff, but get your money back. You got Rob, son. There is no evidence from the fossils of any changing from one kind to another. Is there any evidence of any fossils forming today? David, they find fossil graveyards with millions and maybe even a billion fossils in one graveyard, something catastrophic happened to bury them. When they climbed Mount Everest, 1953, same year I was born, they found fossilized clams on top of Mount Everest. And the clams are in the closed position when I hold it when a clam dies, it opens and so then eats it. You can walk along the beach and find a million seashells. You're from Jacksonville, go out, walk along the beach. You don't find closed clams once they die. You can bury a clam 15 feet deep in mud. It'll dig his way to the top. More than 15 feet. They don't make it typically. That's the boundary they set for them. So how do you get petrified clams in the closed position by the millions on top of mountains all over the world? They find fossil clams and oysters with 11 foot clam shells, 11 feet. That's a big clam on top of the mountains in Peru. Hold it. I would like to point out that, first of all, clams don't climb mountains very well. Secondly, when they die, they open. How can these things be closed and petrified? We have thousands in our museum in Lenox, Alabama. Come on down. So I think you're simply seriously mistaken, David. No fossils count as evidence for evolution. None. All you could prove is archaeopteryx died. You don't know that archaeopteryx had any kids, and you certainly don't know and couldn't prove it had kids that were different. You may believe that if you'd like. And you're welcome to believe this is America, the land of the fee and the home of the slave. So you can believe anything you want, but that's not science. And I reject and resent the idea of them teaching that as science and forcing all the kids to learn that at taxpayer expense. If you wish to believe these archaeopteryx and Lucy, we're missing length, you can believe that if you'd like. If you wish to teach other people that, you're welcome to do that. You want to force me to pay your salary while you do it. Now, there's where we're going to have a problem, son. You go start a private school and teach all about Lucy and archaeopteryx and all this stuff to anybody that wants to pay and come learn it. But none of that has any business being in our public school tax funded system. Why would you think a bone in the dirt can do something? No animal today could do. Why don't we see it happen? See, the evolutionists will say, we don't see evolution happening because it happened long ago and far away and it happens too slowly. OK, then why don't we see in the fossils evidence of evolution where it's a clear pathway? They'll say, well, it happened too rapidly. There is no evidence anywhere on the planet of fossils forming today. How many animals died today? Millions. How many are going to fossilize? None. You can't prove any fossils are forming today. You certainly couldn't prove they're forming in vast numbers. You may find one. But there are billions of fossils in the ground. Look at the diatomaceous earth quarry or the limestone. Thick layers, 300 feet thick. I think there was a catastrophe. The fossils we find are clear evidence of a flood of a judgment on the planet. Where a bunch of stuff died at the same time. And I think the best explanation for the fossils at all is a flood. So let me see if I covered your stuff here. All these that you gave, dinosaurs to birds, apes to humans, fish to tariff, you couldn't prove any of them had any children. Case closed. You lost. You couldn't prove they had different children at all. You couldn't prove they had children that lived and no animals today are doing this. So my contention is there is no such thing as a fossil record. It doesn't exist. There are lots of fossils, but it's not a record. None of them talk. There is no fossil record. But the textbooks teach this like it's some kind of fact. They put animals in some kind of order and say there's fossil evidence of evolution like the whale missing like arranging animals in order doesn't prove anything. I could put a bicycle, tricycle and car. I got a two-wheeler, three-wheeler, four-wheeler. What does that prove? Nothing. Proves I got extra time on my hands to do dumb stuff. Arranging things in order how you would like them to happen is not evidence. You can arrange them in all kinds of orders if you want. But what we see today is whales produced maybe whales without exception. Now if you wish to dream and imagine that it was different longer on far away, you can. But my contention is there is no fossil record. It doesn't exist. I'm going to show you a video of one of the lies I cover on my video number four of my 7-H series lies in the textbooks. Video four. The whole series is 18 hours long. You can get the whole thing for $50. Take it home, copy it, return it, get your money back minus the shipping. You can't beat a deal like that. We want to get the gospel out, David. I'll send you video number four for free if you'll watch it. It's all about lies in the textbooks. I think you've been brainwashed. There is no fossil record. There are simply bones in the dirt and you don't look back in the fossil record. You look at the fossil record as it exists today in your hand. You're not looking back in time. Who taught you that? You're putting your interpretation on them and that's all it is. Dead animals do not reproduce or evolve. Thanks so much. We will jump into the open discussion section. I want to let you know a couple of things, folks. I don't know if it's YouTube or our Lumia app. Basically the light that lights up the studio. But for some reason, the screen is, I am aware that the screen is like tinted green or yellow on YouTube. We are working on that. I don't know what it is like I said. Never seen that before. We are going to kick it over to open discussion though. Gentlemen, thanks so much for being here. The floor is all yours. Thank you. One thing, David. It's a little bit harder to hear you. If you're able to speak closer to your mic or speak a little bit louder, that will help balance it out. Is that better? That's definitely better. Okay, sure. Sorry about that. Again, thank you so much. All right. Ken mentioned about how you can't prove that a fossil had any kids. You couldn't prove that it had any kids that were different. Okay. But Ken, you know, I've heard you say how you accept that like a wolf could gradually over time give rise to something like a pug or a bulldog or something like that. Right? Well, David, I'm not requiring that that be taught as science. I believe a dog and a wolf could have had a common ancestor. But that would be taken on faith. I've never seen a wolf produce a non-wolf. If somebody wishes to believe that, I think that's reasonable. But you want to believe a wolf and a butterfly have a common ancestor. That's completely unreasonable. I don't think it's unreasonable. You believe what you want, but don't make me pay to teach that stupidity in our school system. Go start a private school. Well, I mean, what's wrong with a religion, though? It's a religious belief. It's not part of science. You're saying that like having religion is a bad thing. No. No, religion's a wonderful thing. But is that going to be required in tax-funded schools? Do you want to teach all religions in the schools? Oh, I see what you're saying. I see what you're saying. But, I mean, so you say that you believe it on faith that like, pugs and wolves have a common ancestor? You don't think that's reasonable? I think it can be observed in human observations, the varieties of dogs that are produced. They can watch that happen at the kennel. I had a family come to my seminar one time. They've been in the kennel business for 100 years, three generations. And the lady told me, she said, we could take 20 or 30 generic mutts out of the dog pound. And through selective breeding, we can create every breed of dog on the planet today in 100 years. We could go from a generic mutt to a Great Dane or a Chihuahua. I believe that's probably true. Through selective breeding, they can get all the variations of all the dogs. I'll assume we observe variations happening in different things. Farmers try hard to breed their cows to get either more milk or more beef or more heat resistance or whatever they want for their climate. I believe for you to believe in a cow and a butterfly and a mosquito have a common ancestor. And I don't care if you believe it. I don't care. I do care. They want to teach that in the schools as part of science. It's not science. I think it's dumb. But it's okay. Have any religion you want. But evolution is nothing but a religion. It is logical to say the wolf and the dog might have had a common ancestor. There are thousands of similarities. It is not logical to say the wolf and the butterfly have a common ancestor. I think that's completely illogical. But you understand that it would be a gradual transition from a... You understand that a wolf wouldn't immediately give birth to a pug or something like that. Right? Well, the gradual changes when it comes to dogs, they can be observed over a couple of life spans. I mean a hundred years of people selectively trying to breed something. Especially if you get something with a short life cycle like bacteria. Every 20 or 30 minutes of generation. Now there they get a lot of variation in the bacteria, but they always get a bacteria every time. And you can watch thousands of generations happen in the laboratory in a few years. Thousands and thousands of generations. You can watch it happen. We do not watch the wolf slowly turn into the dog. And your statement that when you understand it's gradual, that's an evidence that it's a religion, David. You believe it might happen, but we can't see it happen. I mean, we don't necessarily have to directly witness something in order to conclude that it's, you know, to reasonably conclude that it happened. I mean, you know, we didn't. You need to look up the definition of science. It comes from the Latin. Science means what we know. Science is things gained by knowledge, gained by observations, experimentation, and testing. There is no observation. There is no experimentation. There is no testing to demonstrate the wolf and the butterfly have a common ancestor. Well, none. I would say there's no fossils. Well, I mean, regarding the fossil record, the further back in time you go and the deeper in the in the earth you go, the simpler and more similar things appear to be. I mean, until they're virtually, you know, indistinguishable from one another. And also, again, this is kind of getting off the topic of fossils, but I think, you know, the genetic evidence for like, you know, elephants and pine trees or butterflies and bananas or something like that. The evidence for that is, again, you know, looking back at the fossil record, but also in genetics, given that we're all made of, you know, the old life is based on DNA, which is also a, you know, it's what they used to determine, you know, a paternity test, you know, which I assume you accept, right? Well, let me make a couple of comments on what you said. You said the further back in time we look, David, you cannot look back in time. You cannot do that. Well, I mean, we date fossils by radiometrically, though. That's how we get the ages of fossils. That's what they told you. They lied to you. Get your money back for education, okay? Why would they lie to me? The earth to get older. All of the layers on the planet, all of the layers are the same age. They taught you in school that the top layer is younger than the bottom layer. I say, really, where did this top layer come from? Outer space? Are the layers being added to the earth from outer space someplace? All the layers are the same age. All of them, they got shuffled up. They got sand and rocks. And we do it here at a demonstration every day. I did it three times today, giving tours of our place. We got a jar with sand, gravel, rocks, mud, and water. You shake it up, set it down. In 30 seconds it settles into layers. Gravel, sand, small sand, clay. Every time. Same order. All of the layers are the same age. You don't look back in time when you dig deeper. All over the world, petrified trees are found that are standing up, connecting all these layers. We've got dozens of pictures in our museum and on my website, drdino.com. And in the video that I'll send you about the polystrata fossils. Let me go to that one. I've got pictures of it here. Polystrata fossils. Here we go. Slide number 900. Oh, 3D 900 page down. So, I think it's sad that somebody taught you this and it's sadder that you believed it. But that's okay. We can fix all that. You don't look back in time. Again, there is no fossil record. It doesn't exist. Here we go. I got it right here. Slide number 9. There are fossils that are fine. What do you mean that there's no fossil record? There are fossils. But it's not a record. None of them talk. None of them have a date stamped on them. None of them. I claim that we do have... I mean, it's not written in English how old it is. It's not written at all. This is a petrified tree standing up... Can you see? I'm sorry. Go ahead. This petrified tree is standing up running through multiple layers. Hundreds of these have been found. These are all in Joggins, Nova Scotia. There's quite a few in Tennessee. Petrified trees in the standing position. We have a sample in our museum of a petrified piece of wood running through 12 different layers of slate. Here's a guy standing by one and there's a fish that was found with the nose stuck in rocks supposedly millions of years older than the head. I'm telling you, the petrified trees in the vertical position show clearly all the layers had to form rapidly. Now, Noah's flood would do that because the tide going up and down every six hours, 12 and a half minutes would make the water rush in to fill the bump and rush out to empty the bump, making lateral movement. We do the demo right here at Dinosaur Ditcher Land. Come on down. I'll give you a tour. This is the lateral movement of the material that's going to round all the rocks off and deposit layers every tide. These petrified trees you're seeing here standing up were probably buried in a couple of days before the wood could rot. Poly straight fossils, there are thousands of them. Had to be buried in a big flood. Let's see, I cover that. I got plenty of stuff on that. Petrified trees in the standing position. So somebody taught you that you look back in time. No, you don't. They taught you if you dig deeper, you're going back in time. No, you're not. You're digging deeper. That's all. All the layers are the same age. They all formed at the same time during Noah's flood. Fossils don't form today at all. Certainly not significant numbers. So the flood of Noah is the logical solution for the problem. But I'm not asking for the Bible to be taught in schools. You guys are demanding that we pay to teach your religion and I resent that. Go ahead. Okay. Thanks, Kent. I'm going to talk about the trees. I was looking up some articles about this on, especially on taco origins, where it talks about how this is not exactly true. And there are scientific explanations for why it appears to be that way. I would like to hear that for you to say there is is one thing. The scientific explanation right here. I got pictures. Right. I'm sorry. Go ahead and say it for yourselves. Cool. So according to mainstream models of sedimentary environments, they are formed by rare to infrequent brief episodes of rapid sedimentation separated by long periods of either slow deposition, non-deposition or a combination of both. And upright fossils typically occur in layers associated with an activity or an actively subsiding coastal accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. David, one at a time. I know you're reading off talk origins. I'll debate every one of those. I'll admit that this is pretty complicated. It's not complicated at all. It's not complicated. All those layers formed rapidly around a standing tree before it had a chance to fall over. Why is it that the scientific community doesn't embrace that though? I mean, if that were the case. You're going by majority opinion. If you go to a Muslim country, you'll find all the scientists in Muslim countries believe Allah was a great guy and Muhammad was a great guy. The fact that there's a majority of people that believe something doesn't make it true. The majority of scientists in communist China right now, and they got way more scientists than we do in America, the majority of scientists in communist China believe communism is good. Does that make communism good? No, no, but the thing is the science is peer reviewed and you have to have others check your work and virtually. The science in China is peer reviewed too. Try to publish an article in China that says communism doesn't work. Try that. Try to publish an article in America that says evolution isn't true. See what happens. Okay. Well, I mean, there is I'm a little, I'll admit that I'm the part about the trees is quite complicated about, you know... I think it's very simple, David, very simple. The Bible says in 2 Peter chapter 3 at the end of time, the scoffers are going to be willingly ignorant of the creation and the flood. They mention in the talk Origins that this is rapid sedimentation. I agree. Noah's flood would do that. You would get many layers deposited every day as the tide goes up and down. If it were like... If it were all deposited in one global flood then why do we not find like human and trilobite and dinosaur remains all in the same layers? Why do we never find them mixed in with each other? Well, great question. First of all, animals tend to be sorted based upon their body density. Birds are going to be found on top because birds are lighter. They have hollow feathers, hollow bones and they're the last ones to die in a flood. So, of course, the birds are going to be on top because nothing to do with evolution. Clams are going to be found at the bottom because they have heavier body density per square inch or per cubic inch. They have shells on them. And they already live at the bottom. That's where they live. Of course, they're buried first. And plus, did you know they've never found human and chicken footprints in the same rock strata? Does that prove humans and chickens did not live at the same time? No, but... But if it were based on density, then wouldn't like sauropods and mammoths be at the bottom? Instead, why are little dinosaurs like comsignathus below large sauropods? Google the average body density of reptiles. You'll find it's different than the average body density of mammals. But even then, I've got those little glass things you flip over and it's called sand art. You can buy them at Walmart for 10 bucks. We have a demo we do here. It's got four different densities of sand in between the glass. It's got black, dark, blue, light, blue and white. You flip it over as the sand falls down. It makes 30 layers. Why would four different densities settle into 30 different layers? Just Google sand art. There's all kinds of pictures on the internet. This is the way water sorts things. Hydrologic sorting. Each tide coming in and out would be... See, the evolutionists are stuck in their head that the layers are deposited vertically. No. It's horizontal movement of the water. If there was a tide covering the world, the tide would become harmonic if there were no interruptions. Now the tide starts coming up and it bangs into something like South America, North America, Africa. The tide gets interrupted. Just Google Harmonic Tide. A musician knows about harmonics. You pluck one string and three more start vibrating that you didn't even touch. If the earth were covered in water, like the Bible says it was, the tide would become harmonic within a few weeks. And it would be a 200 foot tidal change every six hours, 12 and a half minutes. So if the tide came up 200 feet, the waters has to rush in sideways to fill that bump. And so the water is constantly moving sideways along the surface of the earth as the moon holds the bump there and the earth spins under it, the water effect to the people on earth, the water is going sideways to the moon. It just sits there, holds the tide. It doesn't see any movement at all. It just holds the bump. It's the lateral movement that would cause all of these layers to be formed very rapidly. But the Bible says the scoffers are willingly ignorant of the flood. You got taught the top layer is younger than the bottom layer. That is absolutely silly. All the layers are the same age. There's no such thing as a geologic column. You don't look back in time. All the layers were formed in a few weeks or months or a year max before the trees could rot. Sometimes the trees are petrified standing down. Root end up. Now how did that happen through the geologic column? I'm just telling you, it's sad that you got taught this. It's sadder that you believed it. And it's going to be really sad if you don't give it up after hearing the truth. You should give it up. There was a creation. There was a flood. No animal has ever produced any babies other than its kind. God said they would bring forth after their kind. Ask any farmer of vegetables worldwide, universal. No exceptions. What's a kind though? Well, what's a species? Nobody's got a solid definition of a species either. A group of organisms that produce fertile offspring. Can a wolf and a dog interbreed and produce fertile offspring? I believe so. I'll tell you they can. But the wolf and the dog and the coyote are different species. Canus lupus, canus thimos, canus coyote. How come we have different species able to reproduce fertile offspring? I'm just telling you, David, the definition of species is not rock solid in iron. Neither's the definition of coyote. But the Bible said if they could bring forth they're the same kind. I'll tell you this, a wolf and a butterfly cannot bring forth and a wolf and a snake cannot bring forth and a wolf and a mammoth cannot bring forth. Those are different kinds, obviously. I don't know exactly where the line is. But keep in mind, I'm not asking what you're talking about in the schools. I don't have to have a definition at all. You guys got to get the definition. You want me to pay for your religion to be taught. I resent that. So going back to the... Is it okay if we go back to the picture of those crocodilians that I have? Oh, sure. Any pictures up you want? Okay, cool. Awesome. Thanks so much. All right, they're the same kind of animal? I don't know. That'd be an interesting question for science to look at. Alligators and butterflies are not the same kind. Not that I would say. Well, I mean, so... But would you say that... You say that a five-year-old could tell that it's the same kind of animal, right? I think a five-year-old or maybe even a three-year-old could tell you those are... They would probably call them all alligators. And even if they might be a crocodile, slight difference. There are saltwater alligators, saltwater crocodiles and freshwater crocodiles, and they might have had a common ancestor and they've had to learn to adapt to saltwater. What you have there are 11 different varieties of animals that I think is pretty obvious they're not a bird and they're not a butterfly. But do you believe, David, that those crocodiles that you see are alligators in your picture have a common ancestor with butterflies and birds? Do you believe that? I do. Okay, you're welcome to believe that. Well, I believe it because of the evidence. What evidence? DNA, and embryology. Again, the fossils. The fossils offer no evidence at all. You can't use a single fossil as evidence, but DNA is... I claim that we can because it doesn't matter if we find a fossil of Lucy. I mean, it doesn't matter if that particular individual had any kids. You understand that, right? Because there were other animals around that that were of Lucy's species, right? David, you understand that that kind of law, they would laugh at that and say, I'm sorry, you have to prove that one. You're claiming that one. No, I'm not claiming that Lucy, that particular individual, is, you know, ancestral. I'm just... You're claiming Lucy is a missing link. Well, I'm not saying that all of modern humanity is descended from that one individual. I'm not saying that. I know, but you did claim that Lucy. You did claim Lucy is a missing link. You don't know Lucy had any children dry again. Well, Lucy does have the mosaic of, you know, what people traditionally think of as apes and what, you know, she has like a combination of ape and human characteristics like the slanted femur. She had a pelvis more like us and she was bipedal. At least a habitual biped as well as, you know, she had a form and magnum that was more like ours. So she was definitely... You could consider her a missing link. Yeah, definitely. Yeah, that and Homo erectus. David, you can consider it a missing link because you want to believe this stuff. I don't consider Lucy evidence for anything other than it died. And if Lucy was, she was three feet tall. Three feet. No foot bones were found at all. None. But we do have footprints. We do have the Latoli footprints though. And those are dated to be around the same timeframe that, you know, as aphorensis. So it's reasonable. Now, do you know that those footprints came from Lucy? Not that particular individual but one of her species, most likely, yeah. How do you know that? How do you know that? If all you find are footprints, no bones at all. Just footprints. What should you conclude? Well, we haven't found any modern humans remains that old. You're assuming that the depth that they're found means something and it doesn't. All those layers formed in one big flood almost, maybe even all the fossils, but certainly most all the fossils in the world formed in that one year flood in the days of Noah. There are billions and maybe probably trillions if you count the diatomaceous earth and the eclipse trillions of fossils in the world. No question. They died a rapid burial. They were preserved. How many animals died today? We got deer that get killed every day here in Lenox, Alabama area in lower Alabama. Somebody hits a deer. None of them are going to fossilize. None. The buzzards carry them around. The coyotes drag them around. Fossils simply don't form in any observable numbers today. But you have been taught to believe that fossils somehow don't form. Fossils are evidence of rapid burial especially when you find clams that are closed buried on top of the mountains. When a clam dies, it opens. Go walk along the beach in Jacksonville. You find a billion seashells. None of them are closed. We'll be back. If you find clams on top of Mount Everest or wherever, I mean wouldn't it be able to conclude that that wasn't as high as it was? You know? Mount Everest wasn't as tall. Oh yeah. I cover this in my seminar. None of the mountains were there during the flood. The mountains arose during the last part of the flood. If we filled this room, three feet deep in water and lifted up one end of the house. If we lift up one end of the house, all the water is going to run to the other end. Now the water is still in the house. It's just deeper over here than it is here. Out of the water. All the mountain ranges in the world. Follow coastlines. The Appalachian mountains all up and down the east coast. Why do they follow the coastline? Rocky mountains follow the Pacific. The Andes mountains follow the South Pacific. The Alps follow the Mediterranean. I believe during the flood in the days of Noah everything was covered. Thousands of feet of mud layers were deposited with billions of dead things. Then Psalm 104 says toward the end of the flood the mountains lifted up and the water rushed off. All the water from Noah's flood is still here. The earth is 70% under water. And the part that's sticking above water is loaded with layers that we can see. You go to Grand Canyon, you can see thousands of layers. And those layers are loaded with fossils. And they connect to different layers above and below them. David, I'm sorry, you got really brainwashed in your education. Those layers are evidence of Noah's flood. Rapid burial. They find fossilized octopus, squid, jellyfish. They don't have any bones at all. How do you fossilize something soft tissue? You've got to bury that thing within a couple hours of it dying. They find fossil fish struggling to get air with their, or animals with their arch, neck arch back like they're swimming in heavily sediment-laden water. The evidence from the I taught earth science 15 years. All the evidence we see from the earth is screaming at us. There was a flood that drowned all this stuff. So I'm sorry, there is no such thing as a fossil record, which is the purpose of the debate tonight. And no fossils count at all. None of them talk, none have a date on them. None have been seen to produce a different kind of offspring. No animal today can do it. Well, I mean, so back to the, is it okay if we go talk about kinds again? Sure, anything you want. Okay, thanks so much. With the crocodilians, you said that like a kind is anything that can bring forth, is that correct? Well, the Bible says 10 different times in the first six chapters, the animals will bring forth after they're kind. Certainly Great Danes and Chihuahuas, they would have a difficult time maybe, but they can bring forth a puppy. Great Danes and butterflies cannot. Where exactly the line is for kind in every instance, I don't know, I don't care, doesn't matter. Right, but okay. So like looking at dogs, for example, the African wild dog or the painted dog, that is so distinct from domestic dogs and from wolves that they can't even produce an infertile hybrid. So why that logic? It may be the same. Right, it could be in the last 4400 years since the flood, the animals in the dog kind have diversified to where now they can no longer interbreed. I know we have the Kaibab squirrels and the Aburt squirrels on opposite sides of Grand Canyon. They can't get across the river to even try, but my understanding is they can't interbreed and produce fertile squirrel. They're still squirrels. That's called a ring species. They're still the same kind. Any 4-year-old will tell you, that's a squirrel and that's a squirrel. No, but I mean, as a result of 4400 years of isolation, no, but I mean, the African wild dog, the African wild dog, but not a butterfly. David, they're not a butterfly. What was that point from David? Go ahead, David. Oh, thanks. Yeah, the African wild dog cannot even it can't even produce an infertile hybrid. So it can't even produce, you know, like if they mate, they won't make it anything. So I mean, by that logic, they wouldn't be in the same kind. They wouldn't be interfertile. You want to go back in time. Let's go back in time. Could the ancestor of the African dog and the ancestor of the American beagle, could they have produced fertile offspring? Did they somewhere along the line lose the ability to reproduce fertile offspring or maybe they've developed some unusual traits from living in a certain climate? They're still a dog. They're still a dog. Right, right. So I think it's a good point to go back to the point where they cannot produce, you know, even a hybrid for that matter. Like, you know, cheetahs and lions can't produce a hybrid. So I mean, you accept that, you know, at one point in the past, they were able to, you know, like with, you know, I believe, I believe the cats, the cheetah, the lion, the tiger had a common ancestor. I don't know. Maybe there were several kinds of cats on Noah's Ark. Maybe there's more than one variety, maybe there's more than one kind. I don't know. But you want me to pay to teach the kids that the butterfly and the cat are related. Because there's evidence for that. I resent that. Well, there's evidence for it. I mean, they're in genetics. What evidence? Oh, probably for that, what you're talking about is probably genetics. That's probably the most compelling thing because DNA, it's, you know, what we need to determine. So DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. That is the gene code. That's the code to make a person or to make a cell. Humans have about 100 trillion cells in one body. Each of those cells contains 46 chromosomes, DNA strands, except for the gametes, they've got 23. So those DNA is such an incredibly complicated code. It is mind-boggling. And there are similarities. I think that proves the same guy wrote the code. I think if you could decipher it, Microsoft Word has thousands of identical lines to Microsoft PowerPoint. What does that prove? Multi-polar force code? Well, except that DNA is what is it? DNA, or RNA is self-replicating, I believe. With regards to transcription and translation and that kind of stuff. Yeah. My biology is a little rusty. But you know, my biology is not but again, like the DNA code is mind-boggling in its complexity. If you took a Microsoft PowerPoint program, are you computer literate? You know about computers and how they work, right? Okay. Let's take a Microsoft PowerPoint. Let's save it onto a disk. Then let's load it into another computer, copy it and take that copy and save it to another disk. How many times could we copy a program like Microsoft before it corrupted? Is there a chance that in the copying process, after trying to copy off a copy, off a copy, off a copy, off a copy, eventually some corruptions would come in and you may lose some features? Like maybe it won't have spell check or it won't have, you know, font size or, of course. The fact that we have seen animals today that have lost a few features from the original great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandpa is not evidence for evolution. The DNA and the RNA, ribonucleic acid are incredibly designed. If you walked along the beach and you found John Love's Mary written on the sand, it's nothing but sand grains. There's nothing there but sand grains, but they've been arranged in a particular order to give a message. Nobody with one eye and half a brain the waves wrote that in the sand or the seagulls wrote it. John wrote it. Now whether that's smart to love Mary or not is a different story, but the fact is when you see a message written in sand, you know somebody wrote this message. It's nothing but sand. The DNA and the RNA is nothing but the CATG arranged in certain order to produce a message. It would be insane to believe the DNA happened by chance over billions of years and it all came from a rock which came from the soup which came from a dot. I think the whole thing nobody ever says that we came from a rock though. No one ever said that we came from a rock. I mean it's what textbook has that in there? I think I've shown this probably 30 times on my YouTube channel Kent Hovind Official. Straight from the textbooks that the earth began as a hot ball of rock. Do you believe that? I'm not sure I'd have to see it for myself honestly. Well Google it. 4.6 billion years ago the earth cooled down and became a hot ball of rock. Then as it cooled it began to rain and it rained on these rocks and the minerals from the rocks got into the water and made a soup and that soup prebiotic soup so we came from a rock. That is what they teach. I'm telling you it is. I'll show it 20 times. I'll call up some slides to demonstrate that but that is what they teach. Go ahead. I can find it here. So I would say DNA is nothing but evidence for creation that it incredibly complex. Well I agree it's very very complicated and it's a great chance. I don't think so. I'm not an atheist so I'm not going to talk about it. What's the word? I don't necessarily disagree with you about it being complex and I think that maybe even you know but I also accept that like DNA it's used for you know we use it you accept a paternity test and they do the exact same types of tests that they use on to determine if you're the father or somebody and they extrapolate it further back with You cannot go back in time you can imagine if you'd like here we go slide number two and thirty so again like looking at you know like our relationship with other organisms like with the other great apes you know we find that their DNA is like 95 to 98% or I don't remember the exact percentage but it's good point let's hammer that for a minute could that be that the same guy wrote the code for both of them could it be that the apes and the humans have similar duties to do in life like C in front of them and walk and digest food it would be the same code but if you accept that humans or excuse me if you accept that DNA is like it's a helps you know give hereditary information like when does it stop being hereditary and when does it start being like an indicator of design that's when I'm confused well it's just like the sand grains on the beach that say John loves Mary I think it's obvious this these sand grains have been arranged to carry a message the DNA the chemicals in the DNA are carrying a message but why couldn't I say I mean why couldn't it be both why couldn't God you know use because it is very five more minutes and then we will go into Q&A all right let's say it could be both how come we're all paying for your option to be taught and not both options well because there's evidence for it DNA is more complicated than any program ever written by man combined one cell in your body and you got a hundred trillion of them one cell contains more information than all the books ever written by man combined what is the chances of ink falling on the paper making a word let alone a book zero oh is this the DNA of the book oh is this the DNA of the junkyard analogy is this the the junkyard analogy by any chance well that's another example the junkyards don't have tornadoes don't assemble cars in junkyards let me answer the question from a minute ago and then you can have the time this text says the earth formed 4.6 billion years ago it was a hot ball of rock okay millions of years ago rains created the oceans earth started as a ball of very very hot liquid rock which cooled down oh rock is not liquid though rock is solid well if you get rock hot enough it turns to a liquid it's called magma so a few hundred million years ago the earth reached 2,000 degrees the melting point of iron and earth's core was formed earth formed 4.54 billion years ago I have hundreds of quotes swirling in the waters of the oceans of these chemicals that came alive that came alive so yes you do believe where did those chemicals come from though it came from a rock where did those chemicals come from though from the rocks where does it say that you tell me if it's raining on the rocks and now the rain produces oceans and the oceans contain chemicals where did the chemicals come from waters only got 2 hydrogen and oxygen life has a whole lot more than that where did the carbon come from I'm not exactly sure but so if life does form on a rock does that mean it comes from a rock I mean so if the oceans contain prebiotic soup they call it primordial soup here it is from the internet downloaded a couple of months ago okay 4.2 billion years ago what does primordial soup consist of how life on earth first bloomed 3.7 billion years ago when chemical compounds in a primordial soup somehow sparked to life this is livescience.com the internet is full of this the textbooks are full of this and it's complete propaganda because they started as a hot ball of rock it rained on the rocks turned them into soup and the soup came alive yes David you believe you came from a rock so just be proud of it and quit driving on the highway because that's made out of your ancestors well rocks are not live so I mean it couldn't be an ancestors rocks are not living I agree the chemicals in the rocks leached into the water the first self-replicating so those chemicals themselves are those chemicals themselves that got in the water are those chemicals themselves rock what rocks are made up of all sorts of different elements might be but being but those chemicals themselves not the entire rock just those chemicals are those chemicals themselves rock well pieces little tiny pieces of the rock elements no no no so the rock is once one of you is ready to defer to the other I will bring us into the Q&A so I know that we could always keep going but we will have to just I think the audience sees clearly that he does believe he came from a rock textbooks certainly teach that but he'll never admit it go ahead no textbooks said that we came from a rock that's just a favorite straw man we're going to jump into the Q&A folks put them up on screen again want to say appreciate all of your questions folks and as mentioned a couple of things I had mentioned earlier one I have no idea why our screen is yellowish I am baffled next very excited to also mention the guests are linked in the description and so you can always hear more by clicking on their links below and want to say 100% of our super chats today we'll be going to COVID-19 relief efforts and so we want to say thanks so much for supporting that great cause it really means a lot as we get to partner together no matter what walk of life you're from and so we'll get into these questions and as mentioned I put a disclaimer even in the description in addition to mentioning at the start because the we want to respect the time of the debaters we will not be able to read every super chat we will only have a strict 15 minutes of Q&A and then we will have to wrap up and with that thanks so much for your super chat let's see Sang Heli Kalim thanks for your super chat said to Kent if the flood model for geologic stratum is correct why haven't we found fossilized tree roots in pre-Cambrian rock or even Cambrian well I would point out first of all there's no such thing as Cambrian rock there's no such thing as a geologic column you cannot find it anywhere in the world except the textbooks and I taught her science 15 years there's no such thing as a Cambrian layer no such thing as a Jurassic Triassic Mississippi and Devonian Celerion it's all baloney it's all imagination when trees are broken or ripped up in a flood it quite often rips them up and rips the roots off this happened in mouse St. Helens the explosion of the volcano blew 20,000 trees into Spirit Lake they're floating in there in the upright position some upside down and those had to let's see open right here they were ripped off and just partial roots broken roots the trees that I showed I'll get back up here my mouse working slide number 995 there these trees are quite often shown with the roots ripped off during a flood you would it be catastrophic what would happen to the trees of course you're going to lose the roots if they get ripped out of the ground but trees have been found fossilized with stumps and roots on them I've got pictures of some here somewhere let's see so I think the evidence would be very clear some kind of massive flood that did this and floated them around the trees from mouse St. Helens are still floating in that lake 30 years after the volcano blew up they're still floating many in the upright position because the root end gets heavier and it's waterlog and they sink to the bottom and they stick in the mud at the bottom of Spirit Lake scuba divers went down there many times and say look there are thousands of trees standing up in the bottom of this lake none of them grew there none they were blown in by a volcano so go ahead next up thanks to your super chat from see bent for Kent Hovind so let's say you found a skeleton how would you tell if it's a dinosaur you personally how would you decide well I think very very frequently I've seen a lot of animals that are intact and you can look at it and detail what it is we can see deer skeletons laying along the road here and say that's a deer because I've seen lots of deer now how would I personally I may not know the exact name because there's so many different kinds of dinosaurs varieties of dinosaurs but if you just find a single bone sometimes it gets tough a good anatomist can find but I don't care about that kind of stuff so I think the bones that are found indicate they died indicate they were rapidly buried or they would have been dragged around to find a complete intact articulated skeleton is indication of rapid burial because the buzzards didn't get to it the coyotes didn't get to it it was buried completely intact had to be something like a flood and thanks for your super chat from Woody who just sent a picture of a heart thanks for your support and love Woody Bella charge thanks for your super chat said I'm not prepared for that I don't know if they're talking about the screen changing colors on our end but we appreciate it I do hang on a debate I did some months ago he was asking about some topic that I had never heard anybody use for evolution and I said well I'm not prepared for that turns out it's not evidence for evolution at all this has been answered many times I'm not prepared for that I said I'm not prepared to talk about let's see how many horsepower the Russian missiles produce either I don't know I'm not prepared for that I could get prepared I could find out but no I'm prepared now if they want to bring it up again some guy named something pussy or cat courtesy cats said that I said I'm not prepared for that question but I am now and it's a big deal I tell you what when judgment day comes I hope you're prepared for that got you and thanks for your super chat from Jen S who said join the modern day debate patreon to support this channel thanks Jen totally appreciate it we do have a patreon linked in the description folks and thanks Jesus is large says congrats on the channel grow thanks for that appreciate your super chat Dwayne Burke thanks for your super chat said determine if a fossil is an animal in transition or just an undiscovered pre-existent animal so fossils aren't evidence for evolution and they said this is for David oh um so that's interesting interesting point so again when looking at Archaeopteryx would it be okay if I shared my screen again all right cool thanks okay I'm looking at Archaeopteryx we can see that it's clearly very bird-like you know I had feathers it also had a long bony tail like a dinosaur and also three fingers like a dinosaur or what we think of as dinosaurs and also it had a reptilian face with no beak and a teat in some teeth um and no modern birds have those um so it's like I don't understand like why would God make a creature like this you know like I don't understand that like why would he make it you know make it like a hybrid of like a you know this chicken and this compsignathus not a hybrid but like um you know a transitional looking um animal why would he make that you know I'm assuming that question is for me can I get to answer that okay oh yeah I'm sorry you're right my bad yeah that was fail on my part well it depends what you mean by evolution and I know I think most of them are sincere they really believe that are all the Chinese scientists who teach history communism are they lying no they really believe that they've been taught they've been indoctrinated and brainwashed into really believing it so you couldn't accuse some may be lying but I don't think you could accuse them of lying I think you could accuse them of being wrong you could accuse them of being brainwashed that's for sure that's been the history of science they've all the history of science they've taught things that are crazy and later said wow that wasn't true so no they're not I don't know of any that are deliberately lying I think they just really are brainwashed into believing that and I'm trying to fix it I'm here to help call 855 Big Dino tension 3 I'll help unbrain wash you Gotcha and thanks for your super chat Marty Kamiho I don't fully understand this question they asked what does having children have to do with being fossilized I know that this is I think it's referring to something that you had mentioned kind of but I don't know why what they're no it's I think it's obvious to a kindergartner you cannot prove that fossil had any children can you no but it doesn't hold on one second just to he's closed I rest my case thanks for your super chat listen when I think somebody asked they're asking about a phrase that you mentioned earlier in the debate Kent they said Kent did you say at 433 that America is the land of the free and home of the brave standing by the bible slavery laws of the right to own people I think they're asking way off topic on the debate tonight I said the land of the fee in the home of the slave because America has become a long ways away from what our founders intended the guys who started this country said we hold these trues to be self-evident all men are created equal they're endowed by their creator with certain rights where do rights come from if evolution is true if there's no creator where do rights come from I think you'll find that quick descent into slavery is coming because of the stupid rejection of a creator God gives certain rights unalienable rights so go ahead I just so sorry to do this we do a lot of questions just because the question was targeted at Kent I don't want to have it kind of be a gang up Fran Tompkins things to your super chat said thanks Kent for your book claws jaws in dinosaurs and then they asked if you had written the book I did I wrote class the first book I wrote I've written 67 books now I wrote that book in 99 about dinosaurs that may still be living there have been many expeditions in various swamps and jungles say look there are probably some dinosaur you show a picture of an apatosaurus to the natives in the Congo swamp they'll say oh that's Mokoleum Bambi don't get close he's not friendly gosh why would they say that you got it and thanks for your super chat Sigefredo Sarabia is back again asked Kent can a pug the dog breed come from a non-pug how so or why could it not happen I think everybody would agree if you turned all the pugs in the world loose into the woods none of them would survive for a week most of them wouldn't survive two days most of the fancy breeds of dogs that man has developed wouldn't survive on their natural selection would wipe them out they're artificially kept alive because of human protection so no somewhere along the line I bet if we went back in history we could find a time when there were no pugs none somebody had a mutated dog where the bones of the nose were caved in a little bit and said oh I'm going to capitalize on this I'm going to try to get this dog to produce more puppies and the pug was developed with human intervention but it's a completely useless dog in my humble totally unbiased opinion completely useless gotcha next up we got one for David this is rare that we got one for someone other than usually Kent Open gets all the questions but Dwayne Burke says Archaeopteryx is a reptile with wings and classified as a dinosaur but why is a pterodactyl that is also a reptile with wings not classified as a dinosaur oh that's a good question so from what I understand dinosaurs, crocodilians, birds they're all in the archosaur clade which is a clade is like a kingdom pylon class order family that kind of stuff from what I understand pterosaurs are they're a sister group to dinosaurs I'm not exactly sure why but I think it has one of the reasons is that their legs are splayed out or their limbs are splayed out to the side so they don't qualify as dinosaurs I think that's a really simple answer there's a lot more to it though I'm sure gotcha thanks for your super chat I think this is a challenge for you kind of Hoven where they were why don't creationists publish more in peer-reviewed journals and they said peer-review is international so why not publish in a peer-reviewed journal from China do you think a peer-reviewed journal in China would publish an article claiming there's a creator all of communism is based on the philosophy that come from God, rights come from government that's the foundation of communism there's no higher authority if you get a bunch of people together who believe they have rights that come from God they're going to throw the tea in the harbor and start a big war can't have people believe in that so no peer-reviewed the whole idea is silly all through history we've seen changes in what the majority believes look at the age of the earth just 30 years ago they were teaching it's 18 billion years old now they're teaching peer-reviewed journals now they're teaching 13.7 what happened to the 5 billion years it's tentative it's tentative it's exciting they're getting closer though it's really 6,000 just because we have little time I do want to keep moving and thanks for your super chat from Robert Luskum who said James did you thoroughly screen these interlocutors it's referring to another debater that always asks me that area 55 or area 85 restoration thanks for your super chat Kent humans and chicken fossils aren't found in the same layer because chickens hadn't evolved from the jungle fowl yet humans and the jungle fowl are found in the same layers thanks for proving evolution I would like to point out to Mr. 85 whatever that means chickens and humans are still alive today come on down so we haven't found human and chicken fossils together because humans and chickens don't normally hang out together and if there was a flood that destroyed a bunch of animals the humans and chickens would settle into different layers because of the different body density most birds that can fly would fly around and avoid drowning till the last minute so of course birds are going to be found on top of these layers of strata has nothing to do with evolution has everything to do with body density intelligence and mobility silly to believe that it somehow proves the order of burial proves some kind of connection absolutely insane for somebody to believe something so dumb next up is it okay if I interject real quick I think the challenge is we have limited time to read everybody's super chats that they sent and then we also I don't want to given that the last super chat was for Kent then general the general is here thanks for your super chat said Kent do you completely deny geological gradualism and believe that all major geographical such as mountains such that all major geographical features were created by one catastrophic event the flood oh no I think probably 90% of it was there's gradualism happening today we have erosion that's washing the soil down into the rivers we have sedimentation going on in the oceans and lakes and river no gradualism certainly happens but I think the vast majority of the features we see could easily be explained by one big giant flood no that's a trick question they're trying to get trapped me into saying something I've never said that wouldn't believe that certainly gradualism happens but you can't explain everything with gradualism you can't explain a petrified tree standing up through 30 layers with gradualism the tree would rot and fall over gotcha and thanks for your super chat from let's see we have one second so sorry about that I am finding this one you have a let's see okay KO24 thanks for your super chat said question for Kent please explain pesticide resistant insects pesticides are sprayed on a 10,000 mosquitos let's say and 20 of them survive because of usually something broken in their gene code if you went through and handcuffed everybody to hollow off to jail those that don't have hands or arms could not get handcuffed so therefore they would survive and they might produce the next generation and eventually you could get a whole herd of people that don't have arms because they couldn't get handcuffed so a pesticide resistance is built up in just about anything certainly an insect it happens all the time because they have a short generation span but it's still the same kind of animal it's a mosquito or whatever you're trying to kill and what they have is usually a deformed version that survives it's certainly nothing improved nothing got better because of this show me an example where this is evidence for evolution that something actually improved I want to see that gosh and with that we are coming to an end of our time we do want to respect the time of the speakers as well as want to say just a couple of quick things before we do go thanks so much to everybody for your questions for watching today it's always fun to just be here together thanks for contributing to the cause as we kind of gather in together to try to unify and make a hopefully a positive difference in light of COVID-19 and thanks to our speakers for making that possible as well as Kent Hoven and David have come here and they've got plenty of channels that they would uh they have plenty of channels that would love to have them and so we really appreciate them spending their time with us here and so with that thanks so much Kent and David for being with us today thanks so much James absolutely always a pleasure so with that thanks so much folks for hanging out with us and as mentioned our speakers links are in the description so if you want to hear more you can hear more and keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreached